CPA Australia GSL common mistakes
CPA Australia GSL · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Answering the case-study questions as if they were standalone textbook questions, writing generic theory about Porter's Five Forces or PESTEL without tying each point to the named organisation, its industry, and the facts given in the case.
Candidates memorise frameworks during study and default to dumping framework content under time pressure, believing coverage of theory earns marks. The GSL exam is case-based and marks are awarded for application and judgement, so unanchored theory reads as recall rather than analysis.
What to do instead
Before writing each paragraph, force a link: name the organisation, cite the specific case fact, then apply the framework element to that fact. Practise by rewriting past answers so every sentence contains either a case fact or a consequence for the organisation. If a sentence would still be true for any company, delete or rewrite it.
Producing a description of the current situation and the case facts rather than an evaluation or recommendation, so answers summarise what happened without judging whether it is good, bad, sustainable, or what should be done.
Case material is dense and candidates fear missing marks for omitted facts, so they spend the word count restating the case. Many also confuse 'analyse' with 'describe' because undergraduate study rewarded comprehensive summary.
What to do instead
Adopt a claim-first structure: state a judgement (for example, the acquisition destroys value because of X), then give the case evidence, then state the implication. Cap case restatement at one short clause per point. At the planning stage write the verb in the question at the top of the page and check each paragraph delivers that verb.
Ignoring the specific directive words and mark allocation, so a question asking to 'evaluate two options and recommend one' receives a description of the industry, or a 10-mark question receives the same length answer as a 3-mark question.
Candidates read the case scenario first and the question last, then write everything they know. Under time pressure they also fail to convert marks into a writing budget, so early questions absorb time and later high-value questions are rushed.
What to do instead
Read the required tasks before the case detail, underline the directive verb and the number of marks, and allocate roughly one to one-and-a-half minutes per mark. Build a one-line plan per required task listing the judgement, the evidence, and the recommendation. If a paragraph does not serve the directive verb, cut it.
Treating strategy as a static plan: recommending a direction without addressing implementation, capability gaps, resourcing, stakeholder resistance, or how success will be measured and monitored.
Study notes often separate strategy formulation from execution, and candidates revise frameworks for analysis but not the execution and change-management content. Exam pressure pushes candidates to stop once they have made a recommendation.
What to do instead
Use a mandatory closing block for every recommendation: what must change, who owns it, what capability or resource is missing, what resistance is likely and how it will be handled, and which two or three measures will show whether it is working. Rehearse this block until it takes under five minutes to write.
Presenting a single option as obviously correct, with no consideration of alternatives, trade-offs, risk, or the conditions under which the recommendation would fail.
Candidates seek the 'right answer' and believe a decisive single recommendation signals confidence. They also run short of time and skip the comparison step, not realising that evaluation marks sit in the weighing of alternatives.
What to do instead
Always structure evaluation as option A versus option B against explicit criteria drawn from the case (for example, fit with stated objectives, cost, speed, risk, capability). State the trade-off accepted and the key assumption or trigger that would change the recommendation. One sentence of downside per option is enough.
Misreading the organisation's strategic position by importing assumptions from the wrong level of analysis, for example applying corporate-level portfolio logic to a single business unit, or analysing an industry when the question concerns a subsidiary's competitive position.
GSL spans corporate, business, and functional strategy, and candidates revise frameworks without mapping which level each belongs to. Case facts about group structure and reporting lines are skimmed because they seem administrative.
What to do instead
At the start of the case, draw the structure: parent, business units, markets, and who decides what. Label each required task as corporate, business, or functional before choosing a framework. Check that any recommendation is made at the level the decision-maker in the case actually controls.
Failing to integrate ethics, governance, and sustainability into the strategic recommendation, treating them as a separate compliance question or omitting them entirely when the case raises stakeholder, board, or environmental issues.
Candidates compartmentalise professional and governance content as technical knowledge to be recalled in isolation, and do not expect it to be assessed inside a strategy case. Time pressure then pushes it out of the answer.
What to do instead
Scan the case for governance and stakeholder signals (board composition, activist shareholders, regulators, community, supply-chain labour, emissions) and add them as evaluation criteria alongside financial ones. Where a recommendation has a stakeholder cost, state it and propose a mitigation. Treat ethical and governance risk as a source of strategic risk, not a footnote.
Writing answers with no clear structure: long undifferentiated paragraphs, no headings, no signposting, so the marker cannot locate the judgement, the evidence, or the recommendation.
Handwritten or timed typed exams encourage stream-of-consciousness writing, and candidates believe structure consumes words that could carry content. Many have never practised under exam conditions with a marker's perspective in mind.
What to do instead
Use a fixed template per required task: short heading, judgement sentence, evidence bullets tied to case facts, then recommendation and risk. Use signposting words (first, however, therefore, the key risk is). Practise timed handwritten answers and self-mark for whether the structure is visible in ten seconds.
Running out of time because the candidate over-invests in the first required task and the case reading, leaving the final high-mark evaluation or recommendation section incomplete or bulleted in note form.
Candidates read the case exhaustively before writing, take detailed notes on every exhibit, and start writing without a time budget. Anxiety about missing a fact leads to re-reading rather than deciding.
What to do instead
Set a hard reading budget (for example, twenty to twenty-five minutes) with a single page of notes organised by required task, not by case section. Write the clock times for each task's start and finish on the answer booklet. If time is short, write the recommendation section in full sentences first, since it usually carries the most marks, and compress earlier description.
Using frameworks mechanically as checklists, listing all five forces or every PESTEL factor at equal length regardless of relevance, instead of selecting the two or three factors that actually drive the decision in the case.
Framework recall is the most visible revision activity, and candidates equate mentioning more elements with more marks. They also lack confidence in judging materiality, so they include everything to avoid omission.
What to do instead
Before applying a framework, state which elements are material and why, then analyse only those in depth, noting briefly that others are not material. Convert each retained factor into a so-what statement about profitability, attractiveness, or strategic choice. Markers reward prioritisation and judgement over exhaustive coverage.